Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Anand Developers v. ACIT (2020) 271 Taxman 44 /425 ITR 261 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Housing project-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment is held to be not valid. [S. 80(IB)(10)(f), 148, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Core Carbons (P.) Ltd. (2020) 273 Taxman 420 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Export oriented undertakings-Bonafide claim-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S.10B]

PCIT v. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P.) Ltd. (2020) 272 Taxman 157 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue was dismissed , PCIT v. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P) Ltd ( 2021 ) 282 Taxman 463 ( SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not recording of satisfaction-Order of Tribunal quashing the reassessment proceeding was affirmed.

Rajesh Prakash Timlo v. PCIT (2020) 272 taxman 59 /116 taxmann.com 487(Bom.)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Conversion of immoveable property in to stock in trade-Shown as capital gains-Matter remanded to Commissioner. [S. 5A, 143(1), Art. 226]

CIT v. International Society For Krishna Consciousness (2020) 272 Taxman 534 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Made enquiries and dropped reassessment proceedings-Possible view-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 11, 12A, 80G, 139(4A), 147, 148]

Dalbir Singh v. Satish Chand (2020) 273 Taxman 317 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Pronouncement of orders-Repeated adjournments for orders or for pronouncement of judgment where arguments have been heard and orders have been reserved would not be permissible even during lockdown. [S. 260A, Order XII, Rule 6 of CPC]

Sesa Goa Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 430 ITR 114 / 272 Taxman 543 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Inadvertently omitted to make claim for deduction under section 10B-All necessary facts were already on record-CIT (A or Appellate Tribunal ought to have entertained claim-Unlike an ordinary appeal, basic purpose of a tax appeal is to ascertain correct tax liability of assessee in accordance with law-Matter remanded. [S. 10B, 250, 254(1)]

Aranattukara Oriental Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2020) 273 Taxman 165 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Stay-Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide appeal and stay application without asking for deposit of 20 per cent of tax demand. [S. 226 (6), 249, Art. 226]

Monarch v. ITO (2020) 273 Taxman 63 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Attachment of bank account is to be limited to 20 percent of demand. [S. 220 (6), Art. 226]

Jindal ITF Ltd. v. UOI (2020) 273 Taxman 39 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay of demand-Loan-Stay was granted subject to 20 percent payment of tax in dispute. [S. 68, 220(6), Art. 226]